> The ruling did not address some of the most controversial aspects of the raid, such as the FBI’s attempt to confiscate assets from box holders on the presumption they were criminals, even in cases where agents had no evidence to validate their suspicions.
This seems like the most salient issue so that's rather unfortunate.
> “Unfortunately for plaintiffs, the mere presence of such a motive is not by itself enough,” he wrote, citing a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in another search and seizure case. “An impermissible investigatory motive must be the only reason the agents conducted the inventory.”
This would seem to almost give carte blanche to craft warrants on the flimsiest means possible and then wildly overstep the original scope of investigation.
This seems like the most salient issue so that's rather unfortunate.
> “Unfortunately for plaintiffs, the mere presence of such a motive is not by itself enough,” he wrote, citing a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in another search and seizure case. “An impermissible investigatory motive must be the only reason the agents conducted the inventory.”
This would seem to almost give carte blanche to craft warrants on the flimsiest means possible and then wildly overstep the original scope of investigation.